Kristof Koch (who studies consciousness at the neural level) does not deny that in a reductionist way, qm is responsible for consciousness. However, he's disputes the claims of people like Penrose who propose that consciousness itself is quantum mechanical in nature.

Kristof Koch admits the existence of the 'hard problem', but believes that by understanding the 'easy problem' the solution to the hard problem will become clear. However I haven't seen him give any argument as to why this is the case.

Kristof Koch admits the existence of the 'hard problem', but believes that by understanding the 'easy problem' the solution to the hard problem will become clear. However I haven't seen him give any argument as to why this is the case.

This is a general principle. If you were operating under the premise of say, a flat earth, your ability to explain the motion of stellar bodies is going to severely limited. Or say, trying to understand quantum phenomenon without undertstanding newtonian physics.

The hard problem of consciousness is considered by most people to be fundamentally insolvable within the current scientific method. No amount of knowledge of the material interactions in the brain can explain the existence of the immaterial qualia. And Kristof Koch accepts the existence of these immaterial qualia.

Directions of researches, considering in any event the complex of phenomena specified in terminology of analytical psychology author, Carl G. Jung, as “synchronicity phenomena”, were considered. On the basis of available data the original concept was proposed, which could make it possible to provide a theoretical basis, interpreting observations of famous researchers, including from the psychophysiology position. Interdisciplinary approach is applied in this material taking into consideration state-of-the-art progress of the modern science

Kristof Koch admits the existence of the 'hard problem', but believes that by understanding the 'easy problem' the solution to the hard problem will become clear. However I haven't seen him give any argument as to why this is the case.

If I remember rightly, he's used the analogy of DNA: how could something as unassuming as this molecule once appeared lead to the miracle of life? The moral being that the answer eventually came by careful study of the details, rather than by abstract pondering.